Strong Atheism and what it REALLY means to be an atheist

[minotza]

"This is my first post here and I just want to share some of the stuff I've been thinking recently sorry if I may be rambling a bit..I consider myself a weak atheist by the way.."

I thought that was a good introduction lol, what else am I supposed to say?

My purpose in asking those questions was to see where people disagree with me. If you think people would disagree, please, tell me where and on what basis so that I may learn where I went wrong in making my argument.

Minotza,
Appreciate your thoughts. I don't think there is such a thing as strong atheist. First of all if you completely deny God (devine power, uncause cause), you would need to explain universe. It appearance from nothing (scientists proved there were nothing before something). You would need to explain intricate complex and harmony of it. You would explain the reason why we are here, how do we know what to do, where are we going. What is going to happened to us when we die. You would need to explain moral law (don't tell me it does not exist. I can challenge anyone on that). You would need to explain love, faith and hope we humans have in us. I can't explain it apart from God.
thank you!

Why does one need to explain the universe in order to deny God? Please tell me your argument for the existence of moral law, I've always been interested in that. I think that love doesn't exist, and is just a euphemism. Isn't "explaining faith" a self-destructive idea unless you agree not to use logic and reason to explain it? I think that its not that you cant explain it apart from God, its simply just that you cannot explain it (referring to the universe and death).

Thanks for all your responses guys, I think the first topic of my post went way over my head, lol.
What do you guys think about my last question? Do you guys think that a Pure Agnostic should be forced to jump to a Weak Atheist if we assume that people have an obligation to use logic and reason in deciding their beliefs?

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I don't think there is such a thing as strong atheist.

Argument from incredulity.

The hard atheist does indeed attract the burden of proof in relation to the non existence of god(s). He is not obliged to explain anything else unless he has made a specific,positive claim.

A common arrogance of the followers of the Abrahamic faiths is that a god MUST and can only be theirs, with his mutually exclusive ascribed attributes.

The existence or non existence of gods infers nothing about the universe.

[tackattack]

---

Oh and hello by the way, I dont think we've met before.

Hi, nice to meet you. Sadly, I don't think you've understood what I was talking about, as demonstrated by the irrelevance of your responses:

With the Christian God, it is either necessary that He exists or impossible. To say that it is possible, probable or even improbable that He exists leads to the conclusion that He does exist. (This is a conclusion of the modal ontological argument.) So it is not a case of probability with the Christian God.

Thats a bit of a reach and one that I dont agree with. There is zero evidence for the god of the bible. I rate scientology as a more viable belief and that religion is laughable. (it gets extra points for positing an alien overlord, rather than anything as hyper unlikely as a god).

Which one of the sentences I wrote are you talking about? Which claim is "a bit of a reach"? What does evidence have to do with anything I said? Why should your opinion about Christianity and scientology be of any interest?

To prove that you have experienced a tree, do you need to prove that a tree exists first?

Well it would be a good start wouldn't it.
Also a thorough and definitive description of the tree would be nice. I note we have a moving target in the nature of god. Just when one aspect gets disproved theists make excuses and shuffle the goal posts.

Are you honestly serious that observation is not the reason that we believe trees exist? Do you have some kind of a priori argument for the existence of trees???

What I mean is this:
You acknowledge in your use of argumentation that things like the laws of logic exist and universally apply. In order for an atheistic worldview to be consistent, it needs to be able to provide some plausible explanation of this. One of the major arguments for the Christian God put forward is the Transcendental Argument for God (TAG), which argues (to put it very simply, and to give only one aspect of the argument) that if the laws of logic exist, then the Christian God exists (equivalently, if the Christian God does not exist, then the laws of logic do not exist). So TAG challenges your assumption that the laws of logic exist.

Utter bullshit of the highest order.

Pleasant. What do you disagree with? Do you disagree that minotza assumes the existence of laws of logic? Do you disagree that an atheistic worldview is inconsistent if it cannot explain the existence of laws of logic? Do you disagree that TAG is one of the major arguments Christians give for the existence of their God? Do you disagree that the purpose of TAG is to challenge the assumptions people make about the laws of logic? And what is the point of your assertion that laws of logic are "physical properties" (leaving aside how bizarre this assertion is)?

---

Welcome to the forums. Looks like you're off to a good start. I completely agree that observation (and evidence thereof) should proceed definition and classification as part of reality. I don't agree (or would like you to better clarify) with your belief that God is either imposble or exists by necessity.

[Relayer]

I don't agree (or would like you to better clarify) with your belief that God is either imposble or exists by necessity.

Greetings, tackattack. This is a simple implication of the definition of God as a necessary being (i.e. that it is necessarily true that God exists) and a widely accepted result of modal logic (namely, that if it is possible that it is necessarily true God exists, then it is is necessarily true that God exists). Which means that it is either necessarily true that God exists or impossible that God exists. To deny this, you either have to take a non-traditional definition of God as being a non-necessary being, or reject a particular axiom of modal logic (namely S5).

[Edwardo Piet]

"Causing yourself" to exist makes no sense.

Exactly - and I already explained how the only alternative is the assumption that God is necessary (it is an assumption because you could say the same about the universe).

[Relayer]

Exactly - and I already explained how the only alternative is the assumption that God is necessary (it is an assumption because you could say the same about the universe).

Thanks for the clarification that by "necessary" you mean "not needing a cause". In case of any potential confusion that may arise, my use of "necessary" is a stronger property, specifically that a being is necessary if it is necessarily true that that being exists.

[Edwardo Piet]

How is God necessarily existent? (My point was not that something having a cause makes it necessary. My point was that if something has a cause that implies it's necessary).

[Relayer]

(My point was not that something having a cause makes it necessary. My point was that if something has a cause that implies it's necessary).

I'm confused - do you mean "if something does not have a cause that implies it's necessary"? Otherwise human beings are necessary...

[Edwardo Piet]

If something has a cause, the fact that it has a cause implies that it necessarily exists otherwise it couldn't exist to have a cause (just as how the fact that I am conscious ("I think therefore I am") necessarily implies that I exist because if I didn't exist I couldn't exist to be conscious).

"Necessarily exists" at present I mean, I'm not saying that it was pre-determined.

[Ashendant]

Ultimately only the universe is necessary for the universe to exist